The crucial role of groundwater and the centrality of water governance in accommodating growing water demands sustainably are becoming well recognized. We review 10 case studies of groundwater governance-representing diverse global regions and local contexts-from the perspective of four well-established elements: (1) institutional setting; (2) availability and access to information and science; (3) robustness of civil society; and (4) economic and regulatory frameworks. For institutional setting, we find that governing is often a thankless task that paradoxically requires popularity; legislation does not always translate to implementation; conflict resolution is central to governance; and funding is critical for governance. In terms of information access, we see: a need for research for natural systems, social systems, and institutions; trust as an essential element in research; and that urbanized landscapes are critical components of groundwater governance. Looking at civil society robustness, we observe that equity is an essential element for governance; community-based governance requires intention; and leaders can play a powerful role in uniting stakeholders. As for frameworks, the cases suggest that economic incentives sometimes yield unintended results; "indirect" management should be used cautiously; and economic incentives' effectiveness depends on the system employed. Collectively, the lessons speak to the need for shared governance capacities on the part of governments at multiple levels and civil society actors.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD / Governance is essentially the process whereby organisations or networks of organisations exercise their authority. It describes how a body with authority makes or does not make decisions, and how it implements - or does not implement - those decisions. 'Good' groundwater governance can then be defined by how fair the decision-making process is, and how effective the implementation process is. Groundwater governance in South Africa is increasingly being categorized as ineffective. The purpose of this thesis is to explore ways to improve groundwater governance in South Africa. Initial reviews of international studies of groundwater governance did not find any processes that could be directly imported into the South African governance landscape for testing. The global consensus was that there were no blueprints for improving groundwater governance, and that each case should be treated as unique. Therefore the thesis had to change from its initial aim of finding firm rules that could be tested in the South African context, to a revised aim of formulating tentative heuristics, rules, strategies and hypotheses that might be useful for further work in the South African context.An exploratory, inductive-based, loosely structured methodology was therefore employed rather than a more formal, deductive-based testing of hypotheses. In short, the objective of this thesis was concerned with formulating hypotheses rather than testing them.The novel, general, contribution made by this thesis is to synthesize global groundwater governance literature with the specific aim of improving groundwater governance in a specific country. While reviews of global literature do exist, they have thus far only been used to make generic recommendations, and have not been specifically applied to a country. Conversely, while attempts to improve groundwater governance for specific regions and countries do exist, these attempts have largely done so without synthesizing existing global knowledge. Indeed, the emphasis on national, regional and local studies has principally been to understand the factors at work affecting groundwater governance, rather than to improve governance.

Management of groundwater as a common pool resource relies heavily on an institutional design that is fitted to the aquifers to be managed and is scaled to provide efficient and effective governance. Texas has committed to a decentralized system of groundwater management through Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCDs) that offers a high level of local control and area-specific adaptability. However, increasing pressures on the state’s groundwater resources coupled with a strong local aversion to outsider interference has resulted in a proliferation of small single-county GCDs that are neither well fitted to the aquifer systems nor sufficiently scaled to be efficient or effective. In recognition of these challenges, the persistent response has been a slow transition towards larger-scale management. Although a full transition to centralization via state control is not likely to be politically feasible, it would also be limited in its effectiveness, recognizing the wide diversity of climate conditions, water use patterns, growth projections, and aquifer characteristics that exist across the state. Regionalization is offered as a policy proposal for an institutional arrangement and scale of groundwater governance that provides a balance between centralization and decentralization, using institutions that are better fitted to the aquifer systems and appropriately scaled to provide sufficient funding and resources. The merits and logic of regionalized groundwater management have been recognized as demonstrated by the establishment of the joint regional-planning process within aquifer-based Groundwater Management Areas (GMAs), using GCD representatives as the de facto regional groundwater planners. However, the new unfunded mandates for which the already underfunded GCDs are now responsible and the extraordinary planning process complexity that has developed may prove to be unworkable. This realization compels consideration of management through regional authorities designed using the ready-made framework of the GMAs and principles gleaned from successful models of regionalization from other states and within Texas. Such regional authorities, if provided with sufficient resources and authority, would respect the logic of fit and scale and would be better equipped to address the current and future groundwater management challenges in Texas. / text